• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

5G smartphones cause cancer; Big Wireless doesn’t want you to know

News for IT, Internet, new computers, mobile devices, apps

5G smartphones cause cancer; Big Wireless doesn’t want you to know

Postby smix » Sun May 10, 2020 2:09 pm

5G smartphones cause cancer; Big Wireless doesn’t want you to know
Wired

URL: https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond ... want-know/
Category: Technology
Published: March 29, 2018

Description: *I have been waiting and waiting for this particular form of popular fear to surface again. Electro-radiation fear has been subterranean for decades now. *If smartphones cause cancer (and who knows, maybe they do, why not) then it’s even more likely that electric blankets, high-tension lines, microwave ovens and even household electrical wiring cause even more cancer. Plus, there must be thousands of other things that cause far more cancer than 5G smartphones, as otherwise we’d be seeing a colossal mortality wave of men and women with brain tumors and most likely ear tumors. *Ever been to California? Where you walk into certain buildings with loud, alarming signs that declare, “Something In Here Causes Cancer In the State of California, Only, There’s Nothing You Can Do About That, Except To Worry”? This is an intervention that is very much like that.
CONTACT: The Nation | press@thenation.com | 212-209-5426
Late yesterday, an independent peer review of the US National Toxicology Program’s cell phone study announced their findings of clear evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer—validating The Nation’s new special investigation:
How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation
The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.
The Nation 4-23-18 Mark Hertsgaard,
the Nation’s investigative editor and the author of seven books, and award-winning investigative journalist Mark Dowie offer the first exposé of the wireless industry’s decades-long, global campaign to war-game science, manipulate media coverage, and massage government officials into convincing the public that cell phones are safer than independent science suggests. Everyone knows Big Tobacco lied about cigarettes; Big Oil lied about climate change. This is the third leg of the stool: how Big Wireless used the same exact playbook to deceive the public and create the appearance of scientific uncertainty—making people think that cell phones are safer than independent science suggests. This, despite the fact that the wireless industry’s own scientists privately warned it decades ago there were “serious questions” about wireless radiation’s links to cancer and genetic damage. (One key player has not been swayed by all the wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. We found not a single insurance company that would sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive asked with a chuckle before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages.) In the 1980s, cell phones were allowed onto the US consumer market without any government safety testing. This year, 5G is poised to roll out across the country, where antennas the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. Wall Street is salivating at the potential trillions of dollars in economic activity—but by fast-tracking the technology and not doing premarket safety testing, will we make the same mistake with 5G as we did with cell phones? According to the National Toxicology Program’s study, commissioned by the FDA in 1999, there is much more evidence of a cancer-cell phone connection than is widely assumed. More shockingly, NTP brass attempted to water down the public health implications of their findings—in line with the wireless industry’s long-standing denial that cell phone users face risks. “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation” is the April 23, 2018, cover story for The Nation, on stands the week of April 9. Hertsgaard is available for select interviews from San Francisco, CA. For bookings or further information, please see contact above.
ABOUT: Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation’s investigative editor at large, is the author of seven books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency. His most recent books are Bravehearts: Whistle Blowing in the Age of Snowden and Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. Mark Dowie, an investigative historian based outside Willow Point, California, is the author of the new book, The Haida Gwaii Lesson: A Strategic Playbook for Indigenous Sovereignty. Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the breadth and depth of American political and cultural life from the debut of the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical, independent voice in American journalism and a platform for investigative reporting and spirited debate on the left.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

Postby smix » Sun May 10, 2020 3:38 pm

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation
The Nation

URL: https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... stigation/
Category: Technology
Published: March 29, 2018

Description: The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

cell-towers.jpg

Things didn’t end well between George Carlo and Tom Wheeler; the last time the two met face-to-face, Wheeler had security guards escort Carlo off the premises. As president of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), Wheeler was the wireless industry’s point man in Washington. Carlo was the scientist handpicked by Wheeler to defuse a public-relations crisis that threatened to strangle his infant industry in its crib. This was back in 1993, when there were only six cell-phone subscriptions for every 100 adults in the United States. But industry executives were looking forward to a booming future. Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action. A week later, Wheeler announced that his industry would pay for a comprehensive research program. Cell phones were already safe, Wheeler told reporters; the new research would simply “re-validate the findings of the existing studies.” George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date. Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations. Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation. Whatever Carlo’s motives might have been, the documented fact is that he and Wheeler would eventually clash bitterly over the WTR’s findings, which Carlo presented to wireless-industry leaders on February 9, 1999. By that date, the WTR had commissioned more than 50 original studies and reviewed many more. Those studies raised “serious questions” about cell-phone safety, Carlo told a closed-door meeting of the CTIA’s board of directors, whose members included the CEOs or top officials of the industry’s 32 leading companies, including Apple, AT&T, and Motorola. Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….” Carlo urged the CEOs to do the right thing: give consumers “the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume,” especially since some in the industry had “repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children.” The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity. Wheeler’s tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy. Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published, reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler’s discrediting of Carlo and the WTR’s findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record, with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, which, he said, “has concluded, ‘the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”) Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the WTR’s final report to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him. When Carlo arrived, he was met by two seriously muscled men in plain clothes; the larger of the two let drop that he had recently left the Secret Service. The security men steered Carlo into a holding room, where they insisted he remain until his presentation. When summoned, Carlo found roughly 70 of the industry’s top executives waiting for him in silence. Carlo had spoken a mere 10 minutes when Wheeler abruptly stood, extended a hand, and said, “Thank you, George.” The two muscle men then ushered the scientist to a curbside taxi and waited until it pulled away. In the years to come, the WTR’s cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children. But as the taxi carried Carlo to Louis Armstrong International Airport, the scientist wondered whether his relationship with the industry might have turned out differently if cell phones had been safety-tested before being allowed onto the consumer market, before profit took precedence over science. But it was too late: Wheeler and his fellow executives had made it clear, Carlo told The Nation, that “they would do what they had to do to protect their industry, but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health.”
--
This article does not argue that cell phones and other wireless technologies are necessarily dangerous; that is a matter for scientists to decide. Rather, the focus here is on the global industry behind cell phones—and the industry’s long campaign to make people believe that cell phones are safe. That campaign has plainly been a success: 95 out of every 100 adult Americans now own a cell phone; globally, three out of four adults have cell-phone access, with sales increasing every year. The wireless industry is now one of the fastest-growing on Earth and one of the biggest, boasting annual sales of $440 billion in 2016. Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage. Carlo’s October 7, 1999, letters to wireless-industry CEOs are the smoking-gun equivalent of the November 12, 1982, memo that M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental-affairs programs, sent to company executives explaining that burning oil, gas, and coal could raise global temperatures by a destabilizing 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. For the tobacco industry, Carlo’s letters are akin to the 1969 proposal that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote for countering anti-tobacco advocates. “Doubt is our product,” the memo declared. “It is also the means of establishing a controversy…at the public level.” Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen. This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did; it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook’s key insight is that an industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits. Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s. Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings. A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect. One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence. Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved. There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing. Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.
--
“The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility. For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure. The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards. The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.” The revolving-door syndrome that characterizes so many industries and federal agencies reinforces the close relationship between the wireless industry and the FCC. Just as Tom Wheeler went from running the CTIA (1992– 2004) to chairing the FCC (2013–2017), Meredith Atwell Baker went from FCC commissioner (2009–2011) to the presidency of the CTIA (2014 through today). To ensure its access on Capitol Hill, the wireless industry made $26 million in campaign contributions in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and spent $87 million on lobbying in 2017.
--
Neutralizing the safety issue has been an ongoing imperative because the research keeps coming, much of it from outside the United States. But the industry’s European and Asian branches have, like their US counterpart, zealously war-gamed the science, spun the news coverage, and thereby warped the public perception of their products’ safety. The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.” Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to the Interphone study launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained. To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.) The Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent. However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently; nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma. When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.” The industry’s $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured “observer” status at Lyon for three of its trade associations; it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the “invited specialists” who advised the group. Niels Kuster, a Swiss engineer, initially filed a conflict-of-interest statement affirming only that his research group had taken money from “various governments, scientific institutions and corporations.” But after Kuster co-authored a summary of the WHO’s findings in The Lancet Oncology, the medical journal issued a correction expanding on Kuster’s conflict-of-interest statement, noting payments from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, GSMA, and Deutsche Telekom. Nevertheless, Kuster participated in the entire 10 days of deliberations. The industry also mounted a campaign to discredit Lennart Hardell, a Swedish professor of oncology serving on the working group. Hardell’s studies, which found an increase in gliomas and acoustic neuromas in long-term cell-phone users, were some of the strongest evidence that the group was considering. Hardell had already attracted the industry’s displeasure back in 2002, when he began arguing that children shouldn’t use cell phones. Two scientists with industry ties quickly published a report with the Swedish Radiation Authority dismissing Hardell’s research. His detractors were John D. Boice and Joseph K. McLaughlin of the International Epidemiology Institute, a company that provided “Litigation Support” and “Corporate Counseling” to various industries, according to its website. Indeed, at the very time Boice and McLaughlin were denigrating Hardell’s work, the institute was providing expert-witness services to Motorola in a brain-tumor lawsuit against the company. The wireless industry didn’t get the outcome that it wanted at Lyon, but it did limit the damage. A number of the working group’s scientists had favored increasing the classification of cell phones to Category 2A, a “probable” carcinogen; but in the end, the group could only agree on an increase to 2B, a “possible” carcinogen. That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous. Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that “interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence.” Once again, the slippery word “overall” downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn’t like. Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government, hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord, Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou—scientists who worked for Motorola. As Leszczynski recalled, “It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over [government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results.” Years later, a study that Leszczynski described as a “game changer” discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram—20 times higher than officially permitted.) In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots, but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts. “Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up,” Leszczynski said in an interview in 2011. Sure enough, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, where Leszczynski had a long career, discontinued research on the biological effects of cell phones and discharged him a year later. According to scientists involved in the process, the WHO may decide later this year to reconsider its categorization of the cancer risk posed by cell phones; the WHO itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a “probable” or even a “known” carcinogen. Whereas the WHO’s Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn’t, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick. “There is a carcinogenic effect,” announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats. Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats, but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease…could have broad implications for public health,” the NTP’s draft report explained. But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual “more research is needed” spin. “Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer,” demanded a Vox headline. “Don’t Believe the Hype,” urged The Washington Post. Newsweek, for its part, stated the NTP’s findings in a single paragraph, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored. The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26–28, amid signs that the program’s leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study’s early results were released in 2016. But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018, John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that “I don’t think this is a high-risk situation at all,” partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced. Microwave News’s Slesin speculated on potential explanations for the NTP’s apparent backtracking: new leadership within the program, where a former drug-company executive, Brian Berridge, now runs the day-to-day operations; pressure from business-friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP’s newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it?
--
The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive, but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause cells to shed electrons, which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects. The wireless industry’s determination to bring about the Internet of Things, despite the massive increase in radiation exposure this would unleash, raises the stakes exponentially. Because 5G radiation can only travel short distances, antennas roughly the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. “Industry is going to need hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of new antenna sites in the United States alone,” said Moskowitz, the UC Berkeley researcher. “So people will be bathed in a smog of radiation 24/7.” There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.” No scientist can say with certainty how many wireless-technology users are likely to contract cancer, but that is precisely the point: We simply don’t know. Nevertheless, we are proceeding as if we do know the risk, and that the risk is vanishingly small. Meanwhile, more and more people around the world, including countless children and adolescents, are getting addicted to cell phones every day, and the shift to radiation-heavy 5G technology is regarded as a fait accompli. Which is just how Big Wireless likes it.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

5G Danger: 13 Reasons New Millimeter Wave Tech Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

Postby smix » Sun May 10, 2020 5:43 pm

5G Danger: 13 Reasons New Millimeter Wave Tech Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity
The Freedom Articles

URL: https://thefreedomarticles.com/5g-dange ... -disaster/
Category: Technology
Published: June 13, 2019

Description: 5G (5th Generation) is now being actively rolled out in many cities around the world. Simultaneously, as awareness over its horrific health and privacy impacts is rising, many places are issuing moratoriums on it or banning it, such as the entire nation of Belgium, the city of Vaud (Switzerland) and San Francisco (USA). Radiofrequency radiation (RF or RFR) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) are being increasingly recognized as new types of pollution – environmental pollution. Here are 13 reasons exposing the 5G danger, which could turn into an unmitigated health and privacy catastrophe if enough people don’t rise up to stop it.
1. 5G Danger: Hijacking Your Sweat Duct AntennaeThe 5G network uses and broadcasts frequencies which affect our sweat ducts, which act as antennae. In other words, our largest organ, the skin, can be influenced and manipulated by 5G. As I reported in this the article 5G and IoT: Total Technological Control Grid Being Rolled Out Fast, scientist Dr. Ben-Ishai exposed the connection between 5G and our body’s sweat ducts in this video:
“[The 5G frequencies] will zap [us] with wavelengths that will interact with the geometrical structure of our skin … We found that sweat ducts work like helical antennas … the sweat duct was an integral part of the mechanism for the absorption of energy, electromagnetic, between 75-100 GHz, and that if you changed the character of the sweat duct, i.e. made it work, you could actually change that absorption at some point, and if you could do that you could trace how a person is under stress.“

2. 5G Danger: 5G Amplifies EMF Damage via VGCCs
Wireless radiation and EMF scientist Dr. Martin Pall has done groundbreaking research in explaining exactly how EMFs cause premature aging and injury to the human body, including damage to fertility, brains, hearts and even DNA! He pioneered research showing how EMFs activate the body’s VGCCs (Voltage-gated calcium channels) which causes them to release excess calcium ions into the cell. This then leads to nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide which react nearly instantaneously to form peroxynitrite and free radicals. Many studies like this show peroxynitrite damages DNA. Dr. Pall has stated unequivocallythat the “5G rollout is absolutely insane.”
3. 5G Danger: Pulsed Wave Far More Damaging than Continuous Wave Radiation
A significant and unique feature of Smart Meters is that they emit pulsed wave radiation not continuous wave radiation. In other words, they run in start-stop cycles of emitting a burst of EMF then going temporarily inactive. This happens an incredibly high amount of times per day; court documents with testimony from utility companies (like Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California) reveal that smart meters send pulsed waves between 9,600 and 190,000 times per day! In this 2018 video, Dr. Pall states there are 13 studies which show that pulsed wave EMFs are more active (and dangerous) than continuous wave EMFs. You can read the evidence here.
4. 5G Danger: 5G Promotes Deep EMF Penetration
The main reason why cell or mobile phones are more dangerous for children than adults (apart from the fact that radiation absorption is cumulative over a lifetime) is due to EMF penetration. Dr. Pall writes:
“The industry has also made claims that more conventional microwave frequency EMFs are limited in effect to the outer 1 cm of the body. We know that is not true, however because of the effects deep in the human brain, on the heart and on hormone systems. Perhaps the most important two studies demonstrating effects deep within the body are the studies of Professor Hässig and his colleagues in Switzerland on cataract formation in newborn calves. These two studies clearly show that when pregnant cows are grazing near mobile phone base stations (also called cell phone towers), the calves are born with very greatly increased incidences of cataracts.”

Hässig wrote in his 2009 study:
“Of 253 calves, 79 (32%) had various degrees of nuclear cataract, but only 9 (3.6%) calves had severe nuclear cataract. Results demonstrate a relation between the location of veals calves with nuclear cataracts in the first trimester of gestation and the strength of antennas. The number of antennas within 100 to 199 meters was associated with oxidative stress and there was an association between oxidative stress and the distance to the nearest MPBS (Mobile Phone Base Station).”

5. 5G Danger: 5G is a Weapons System Disguised as a Consumer Convenience
Mark Steele has been very outspoken against 5G and has now been widely interviewed, including by Project Camelot and also by Sacha Stone in his documentary 5G Apocalypse: The Extinction Event. Steele claims that although widespread reports state that 5G is operating in the 24-100 GHz range, it is actually sub-gigahertz (meaning under the GHz threshold, so still measured in MHz). He says 5G is a weapons system like long-range radar, phased array radar and directed energy (DEW was used in 9/11 and various fires like the Paradise fires). He claims that when you examine 5G hardware, it has a dielectric lens which is proof it is a weapons system. Autonomous vehicles can use 5G to shine in mirrors of other drivers (which is so strong and damaging it is equivalent to assault). Mark talks about how 5G is powerful enough to kill babies in wombs. He states:
“5G is a weapons system, nothing more, nothing less. It’s got nothing to do with telecommunications for humans. 5G is a machine to machine connection for autonomous vehicles.”

6. 5G Danger: LA Firefighters Develop Ailments After Being Too Close to Towers
In this videoa 25 year veteran firefighter from Los Angeles compares cell towers to cigarettes. He calls for a stop to the cell/mobile phone base stations being built on or near fire stations.



Firefighters are not the only ones suffering the effects; it was reported that hundreds of birds fell from the sky in the Netherlands during a 5G test.



7. 5G Danger: Same Frequencies as used for Crowd Dispersal
5G purportedly uses millimeter wave (MMW) frequencies, so called because the frequencies are so high (in the 24-100 GHz range). Since 1 GHz = 1 billion GHz, we are talking about frequencies with very very short wavelength (the distance between the peak of one wave and the next). The distances are so tiny they are measured in millimeters, hence the term millimeter wave. These are the exact same frequencies used by the military for their non-lethal weapons such as Active Denial Systems for crowd dispersal. These weapons have the capacity to cause tremendous injury. Dr. Paul Ben-Ishai said, “If you are unlucky enough to be standing there when it hits you, you will feel like your body is on fire.”
8. 5G Danger: Mutagenic (Causing DNA Damage) and Carcinogenic (Causing Cancer)?
The MMW frequencies of 5G cause mitochondrial DNA damage – which is then passed down generations. 5G is mutagenic. These mutations are inherited by the next generation! This has grave implications for genetic purity. How many people are thinking about this when they can’t stop looking at their screens? This website lists many studies showing the mitochondrial damage that occurs after exposure to EMF radiation. With mutagenesis usually comes carcinogenesis. In other words, once something is powerful and dangerous enough to cause DNA damage, chances are high it will lead to cancer. Mark Steele says 5G is a class 1 carcinogen, although the WHO (World Health Organization) very conservatively classifies cell phone towers as a class 2b possible carcinogen. It’s important to note, however, that the WHO is an agency of the UN which was set up by the Rockefellers, an illustrious NWO Illuminati family who plan to use the UN as a vehicle to usher in a One World Government. 5G is being rushed out without the proper safety testing done, so we don’t have much data on how 5G specifically causes cancer, but there is an abundance of evidence showing how 2G, 3G and 4G EMFs are implicated in many kinds of cancer, including brain cancer. This website has a good collection of the many studies done.
9. 5G Danger: Phased Array Densification
5G requires significantly more transmitters or broadcasters than earlier generations. It is a plan of massive infrastructure creation, with stations, towers and bases planned to be put almost everywhere, including in the heart of residential neighborhoods. The effects of this kind of densification could be disastrous. 5G is powerful enough to 3D map the inside of your home and other buildings. Mark Steele specifically highlights the 868 MHz frequency, previously used for battlefield interrogations and which can travel with ease through bricks and concrete. He claims this frequency can single out specific people … interesting given all the electronic harassment and gang stalking which occurs against TIs (Targeted Individuals). 5G infrastructure will consist of small phased array antennas shooting out radiation at their targets like a bullet. The rays of microwaves they produce will be strong enough to pass through walls and human bodies. We will be blanketed with this 24/7/365, and what’s worse, the coverage area is slated to be broader than the current 4G, eventually encompassing every square inch of Earth.
10. 5G Danger: Killing All the Insects?
Insects, birds and children are the most vulnerable to 5G due to their body size. Claire Edwards is a former UN staff editor who brought the EMF/5G issue to their attention of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. She stated in an anti-5G rally speech in Stockholm:
“It’s interesting to note that in the last 20 years we have lost 80% of our insects. And if we get 5G, we’re going to lose 100% of our insects. When the insects go, we go too.”

Both insects and 5G need antennas: insects use them, among other things, in their sense of smell, while 5G uses them to propagate waves. Not surprisingly, insects are sensitive to 5G EMF waves; this recent study showed that insects exposed to 5G radiation experienced an increase in their body temperature.
“Studies have shown that the frequencies used by 5G increase the body temperature of insects. This phenomenon was not observed with 4G or WiFi.”

Meanwhile the study Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz concludes:
“Future wavelengths of the electromagnetic fields used for the wireless telecommunication systems will decrease and become comparable to the body size of insects and therefore, the absorption of RF-EMFs in insects is expected to increase.”

11. 5G Danger: Space-Based 5G
5G is planned to be an inescapable grid – with plans afoot to beam it down from space! This ties into the Space Fence agenda as I discussed in my article Space Fence: Connecting the Surveillance and Transhumanist Agendas. The organization International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in Space writes:
“At least five companies are proposing to provide 5G from space from a combined 20,000 satellites in low- and medium-Earth orbit that will blanket the Earth with powerful, focused, steerable beams. Each satellite will emit millimetre waves with an effective radiated power of up to 5 million watts from thousands of antennas arranged in a phased array.”

It is vital to understand the bigger picture of the grand conspiracy here. All these disruptive and hazardous technologies – 5G, wi-fi, wireless radiation, HAARP, ionospheric heating, geoengineering, GMOs, etc. – are going to be woven into one giant integrated system of surveillance, command and control. Just as one small example, geoengineering involves the spraying of chemtrails loaded with metal particulates – which 5G can use.
12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body
Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicate inside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:
“… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …” “These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”

This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.
13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know
Insurance companies (the most famous of which is Lloyds of London) have made headlines by refusing to insure Big Wireless (the telecommunication corporate conglomerate) against wi-fi and 5G-related illnesses and claims:
“Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 [now 9 – Ed.] years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness.”

Conclusion: 5G Grid Part of Larger Command, Control, Surveillance and AI Agenda
5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different to 4G. It is much more than just the next step up from 4G. 5G will not only beam tens to hundreds times more radiation than 4G, but the introduction of MMW technology means a whole new host of hazards. History repeats itself. Just like it took some time for real science to catch up with tobacco/cigarettes, and just like it took some time for real science to catch up with the monstrosity that are GMOs (now rebranded as BioEngineered Foods), so too will real science catch up with 5G. In the meantime, you can expect all sorts of junk science to be put forth to justify it, including misdirections and distractions like only focusing on the thermal effects of wireless (and ignoring the evidence of dangerous non-thermal effects). Ultimately, 5G is part of the NWO agenda to set up a giant, inescapable command and control grid that eliminates all privacy and allows the manipulators to surveil every single person on the planet all the time. If there was ever a time for activists to step up in the name of freedom, truth, health, privacy and sovereignty, now is the time.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

5G Network Uses Same EMF Waves as Pentagon Crowd Control System

Postby smix » Sun May 10, 2020 6:07 pm

5G Network Uses Same EMF Waves as Pentagon Crowd Control System
Waking Times

URL: https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/10/05/ ... ol-system/
Category: Technology
Published: October 5, 2018

Description: The global rollout of 5G is well underway, and we soon may see new small cell towers near all schools, on every residential street, dispersed throughout the natural environment, and pretty much everywhere. But the safety of this technology is in serious question, and there is a raging battle to stop the taxpayer funded implementation of 5G.

5G-Crowd-Control.jpg

The new cell network uses high band radio frequency millimeter waves to deliver high bandwidth data to any device within line of sight.
“Today’s cellular and Wi-Fi networks rely on microwaves – a type of electromagnetic radiation utilizing frequencies up to 6 gigahertz (GHz) in order to wirelessly transmit voice or data. However, 5G applications will require unlocking of new spectrum bands in higher frequency ranges above 6 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond, utilizing submillimeter and millimeter waves – to allow ultra-high rates of data to be transmitted in the same amount of time as compared with previous deployments of microwave radiation.” Source

“One of the ways 5G will enable this is by tapping into new, unused bands at the top of the radio spectrum. These high bands are known as millimeter waves (mmwaves), and have been recently been opened up by regulators for licensing. They’ve largely been untouched by the public, since the equipment required to use them effectively has typically been expensive and inaccessible.” Source

Among the many potential problems with exposure to 5G radio waves are issues with the skin, which is interesting when you consider that this technology is already being used in the military for crowd control purposes.
“This kind of technology, which is in many of our homes, actually interacts with human skin and eyes. The shocking finding was made public via Israeli research studies that were presented at an international conference on the subject last year. Below you can find a lecture from Dr. Ben-Ishai of the Department of Physics at Hebrew University. He goes through how human sweat ducts act like a number of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths that are put out by the devices that employ 5G technology.” Source




The U.S. military developed a non-lethal crowd control weapon system called the Active Denial System (ADS). It uses radio frequency millimeter waves in the 95GHz range to penetrate the top 1/64 of an inch layer of skin on the targeted individual, instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee. This video demonstrates:



This technology is becoming ubiquitous in top world militaries, demonstrating how genuinely effective this radio frequency energy can be at causing harm [youtube][youtube][/youtube][/youtube]to humans and anything else.
“U.S., Russian, and Chinese defense agencieshave been active in developing weapons that rely on the capability of this electromagnetic technology to create burning sensations on the skin, for crowd control. The waves are Millimetre waves, also used by the U.S. Army in crowd dispersal guns called Active Denial Systems.” Source

Final Thoughts
The fight over 5G is heating up at the community level, and awareness of this important issue is spreading fast. For more background on 5G, watch this video from Take Back Your Power, featuring Tom Wheeler, Former FCC Chairman and corporate lobbyist, who delivers a rather intimidating and presumptuous speech praising this new technology. The fight over 5G is heating up at the community level, though, and now is the time to speak out against it.

User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

Postby smix » Sun May 10, 2020 8:06 pm

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
Scientific American

URL: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... g-is-safe/
Category: Technology
Published: October 17, 2019

Description: The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks
The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating. Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future. Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.” The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures. Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility). Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users. 5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play? Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

5G Danger: Hundreds Of Respected Scientists Sound The Alarm About Health Effects As 5G Networks Go Up Nationwide

Postby smix » Sun May 10, 2020 10:56 pm

5G Danger: Hundreds Of Respected Scientists Sound The Alarm About Health Effects As 5G Networks Go Up Nationwide
End of the American Dream

URL: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv ... nationwide
Category: Technology
Published: May 19, 2019

Description: Even though many in the scientific community are loudly warning about the potential health effects that 5G technology could have on the general population, Verizon and AT&T are starting to put up their 5G networks in major cities all across the nation. Today, the total number of cell phones exceeds the entire population of the world, and the big cell phone companies are making a crazy amount of money providing service to all of those phones. And now that the next generation of cell phone technology has arrived, millions of cell phone users are looking forward to better connections and faster speeds than ever before. In fact, President Trump says that 5G networks will be up to 100 times faster than the current 4G networks that we are using right now…
5G will be as much as 100 times faster than the current 4G cellular networks. It will transform the way our citizens work, learn, communicate, and travel. It will make American farms more productive, American manufacturing more competitive, and American healthcare better and more accessible. Basically, it covers almost everything, when you get right down to it. Pretty amazing. And just as 4G networks paved the way for smartphones and all of the exciting breakthroughs — they made possible so many things — this will be more secure and resilient. 5G networks will also create astonishing and really thrilling new opportunities for our people — opportunities that we’ve never even thought we had a possibility of looking at.

Sounds great, right? But in order to achieve such vastly superior performance, 5G networks will use technology that is completely different from 4G networks. 5G waves are “ultra high frequency” and “ultra high intensity”, but they are also easily absorbed by objects such as buildings and trees. So although cell towers will be much, much smaller, but they will also have to be much, much closer together than before. According to CBS News, it is estimated that the big cell phone companies will be putting up at least 300,000 of these small towers, and it has been projected that it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to fully set up the 5G network nationwide. Needless to say, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake, and the big cell phone companies are trying very hard to assure everyone that 5G technology is completely safe. But is it? Today, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that indicates that the electromagnetic radiation that we are constantly being bombarded with is not good for us. Hundreds of scientists that are engaged in research in this area have signed the “International EMF Scientist Appeal”, and this is how that document begins…
We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

In the next paragraph, we are told that “cancer risk”, “genetic damages”, “functional changes of the reproductive system”, and “neurological disorders” are some of the health risks that have been discovered by the scientific research that has been conducted so far…
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

And remember, 5G technology is going to take all of this to an entirely new level. Because the 5G towers are going to be so powerful and so close together, it will essentially be like living in a closed radiation chamber 24 hours a day. Over in Israel, one scientist has discovered that the surface of the human body actually draws in 5G radiation “like an antenna”…
What’s further disturbing about 5G radiation is how the human body responds to and processes it. Dr. Ben-Ishai from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem discovered as part of a recent investigation that human skin acts as a type of receptor for 5G radiation, drawing it in like an antenna. “This kind of technology, which is in many of our homes, actually interacts with human skin and eyes,” writes Arjun Walia for Collective Evolution about the study. “… human sweat ducts act like a number of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths that are put out by the devices that employ 5G technology,” he adds.

In other words, our bodies are essentially magnets for 5G radiation. So will it be worth it? Will you be willing to risk your life in order to have better connections and faster speeds? Sure, your phone will be more useful than ever before, but there is also the possibility that you could get cancer. Even the American Cancer Society acknowledges the risk…
A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed large groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands.

Of course all previous studies have been done on existing cell phone technology. No studies have been done on the health effects of our new ultra-powerful 5G technology, and this has many scientists extremely concerned. Dr. Martin Pall, a PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, says that rolling out 5G without any safety testing whatsoever “has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world”. Unfortunately, there is no organized opposition and 5G networks are going up all over the country right now. So it won’t be too long before you are being bombarded by “ultra high frequency” and “ultra high intensity” cell phone radiation wherever you go, and most people won’t even realize what is happening. And if you do get sick, the cell phone companies sure aren’t going to pay the bill.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

INTERNATIONAL APPEAL - Stop 5G on Earth and in Space

Postby smix » Mon May 11, 2020 3:33 pm

INTERNATIONAL APPEAL - Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
5G Space Appeal

URL: https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal
Category: Petition
Published: September 17, 2018

Description: To the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations
We the undersigned scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens from (__) countries, urgently call for a halt to the deployment of the 5G (fifth generation) wireless network, including 5G from space satellites. 5G will massively increase exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation on top of the 2G, 3G and 4G networks for telecommunications already in place. RF radiation has been proven harmful for humans and the environment. The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.
Executive summary
Telecommunications companies worldwide, with the support of governments, are poised within the next two years to roll out the fifth-generation wireless network (5G). This is set to deliver what is acknowledged to be unprecedented societal change on a global scale. We will have “smart” homes, “smart” businesses, “smart” highways, “smart” cities and self-driving cars. Virtually everything we own and buy, from refrigerators and washing machines to milk cartons, hairbrushes and infants’ diapers, will contain antennas and microchips and will be connected wirelessly to the Internet. Every person on Earth will have instant access to super-high-speed, low- latency wireless communications from any point on the planet, even in rainforests, mid-ocean and the Antarctic. What is not widely acknowledged is that this will also result in unprecedented environmental change on a global scale. The planned density of radio frequency transmitters is impossible to envisage. In addition to millions of new 5G base stations on Earth and 20,000 new satellites in space, 200 billion transmitting objects, according to estimates, will be part of the Internet of Things by 2020, and one trillion objects a few years later. Commercial 5G at lower frequencies and slower speeds was deployed in Qatar, Finland and Estonia in mid-2018. The rollout of 5G at extremely high (millimetre wave) frequencies is planned to begin at the end of 2018. Despite widespread denial, the evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulated clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experimental evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in a wide variety of plants and animals, and epidemiological evidence that the major diseases of modern civilization—cancer, heart disease and diabetes—are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution, forms a literature base of well over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies. If the telecommunications industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth’s ecosystems. Immediate measures must be taken to protect humanity and the environment, in accordance with ethical imperatives and international agreements.
5G will result in a massive increase in inescapable, involuntary exposure to wireless radiation
Ground-based 5G
In order to transmit the enormous amounts of data required for the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G technology, when fully deployed, will use millimetre waves, which are poorly transmitted through solid material. This will require every carrier to install base stations every 100 metres in every urban area in the world. Unlike previous generations of wireless technology, in which a single antenna broadcasts over a wide area, 5G base stations and 5G devices will have multiple antennas arranged in “phased arrays” that work together to emit focused, steerable, laser-like beams that track each other. Each 5G phone will contain dozens of tiny antennas, all working together to track and aim a narrowly focused beam at the nearest cell tower. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules permitting the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts, ten times more powerful than the levels permitted for current phones. Each 5G base station will contain hundreds or thousands of antennas aiming multiple laser-like beams simultaneously at all cell phones and user devices in its service area. This technology is called “multiple input multiple output” or MIMO. FCC rules permit the effective radiated power of a 5G base station’s beams to be as much as 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum, or equivalently 300,000 watts per GHz of spectrum, tens to hundreds of times more powerful than the levels permitted for current base stations.
Space-based 5G
At least five companies are proposing to provide 5G from space from a combined 20,000 satellites in low- and medium-Earth orbit that will blanket the Earth with powerful, focused, steerable beams. Each satellite will emit millimetre waves with an effective radiated power of up to 5 million watts from thousands of antennas arranged in a phased array. Although the energy reaching the ground from satellites will be less than that from ground-based antennas, it will irradiate areas of the Earth not reached by other transmitters and will be additional to ground-based 5G transmissions from billions of IoT objects. Even more importantly, the satellites will be located in the Earth’s magnetosphere, which exerts a significant influence over the electrical properties of the atmosphere. The alteration of the Earth’s electromagnetic environment may be an even greater threat to life than the radiation from ground-based antennas (see below).
Harmful effects of radio frequency radiation are already proven
Even before 5G was proposed, dozens of petitions and appeals by international scientists, including the Freiburger Appeal signed by over 3,000 physicians, called for a halt to the expansion of wireless technology and a moratorium on new base stations. In 2015, 215 scientists from 41 countries communicated their alarm to the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) They stated that “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF [electromagnetic fields] affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. More than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate harm to human health from RF radiation. Effects include:
* Alteration of heart rhythm
* Altered gene expression
* Altered metabolism
* Altered stem cell development
* Cancers
* Cardiovascular disease
* Cognitive impairment
* DNA damage
* Impacts on general well-being
* Increased free radicals
* Learning and memory deficits
* Impaired sperm function and quality
* Miscarriage
* Neurological damage
* Obesity and diabetes
* Oxidative stress
Effects in children include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is abundant evidence of harm to diverse plant- and wildlife and laboratory animals, including:
* Ants
* Birds
* Forests
* Frogs
* Fruit flies
* Honey bees
* Insects
* Mammals
* Mice
* Plants
* Rats
* Trees
Negative microbiological effects have also been recorded. The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in 2011 that RF radiation of frequencies 30 kHz - 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, recent evidence, including the latest studies on cell phone use and brain cancer risks, indicate that RF radiation is proven carcinogenic to humans and should now be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogen” along with tobacco smoke and asbestos. Most contemporary wireless signals are pulse-modulated. Harm is caused by both the high-frequency carrier wave and the low-frequency pulsations.
The deployment of 5G satellites must be prohibited
The Earth, the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere form the global electric circuit in which we live. It is well established that biological rhythms—of humans, birds, hamsters, and spiders—are controlled by the Earth’s natural electromagnetic environment and that the well-being of all organisms depends on the stability of this environment, including the electrical properties of the atmosphere. Cherry, in a groundbreaking paper, explained the importance of the Schumann resonances and why ionospheric disturbances can alter blood pressure and melatonin and cause “cancer, reproductive, cardiac and neurological disease and death”. These elements of our electromagnetic environment have already been altered by radiation from power lines. Power line harmonic radiation reaches the Earth’s ionosphere and magnetosphere, where it is amplified by wave-particle interactions. In 1985, Dr. Robert O. Becker warned that power line harmonic radiation had already changed the structure of the magnetosphere, and that the continued expansion of this effect “threatens the viability of all life on Earth”. The placement of tens of thousands of satellites directly in both the ionosphere and magnetosphere, emitting modulated signals at millions of watts and millions of frequencies, is likely to alter our electromagnetic environment beyond our ability to adapt. Informal monitoring has already provided evidence indicating serious effects on humans and animals from the approximately 100 satellites that have provided 2G and 3G phone service from low orbit since 1998. Such effects cannot be understood only from consideration of the low levels of radiation on the ground. Knowledge from other relevant scientific disciplines must be taken into account, including the fields of atmospheric physics and acupuncture. Adding 20,000 5G satellites will further pollute the global electric circuit and could alter the Schumann resonances, with which all life on Earth has evolved. The effects will be universal and may be profoundly damaging.
5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G
The idea that we will tolerate tens to hundreds of times more radiation at millimetre wavelengths is based on faulty modelling of the human body as a shell filled with a homogeneous liquid. The assumption that millimetre waves do not penetrate beyond the skin completely ignores nerves, blood vessels and other electrically conducting structures that can carry radiation-induced currents deep into the body. Another, potentially more serious error is that phased arrays are not ordinary antennas. When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that reradiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These reradiated waves are called Brillouin precursors. They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough. 5G will probably satisfy both criteria. In addition, shallow penetration in itself poses a unique danger to eyes and to the largest organ of the body, the skin, as well as to very small creatures. Peer-reviewed studies have recently been published, predicting thermal skin burns in humans from 5G radiation and resonant absorption by insects, which absorb up to 100 times as much radiation at millimetre wavelengths as they do at wavelengths presently in use. Since populations of flying insects have declined by 75-80 per cent since 1989 even in protected nature areas, 5G radiation could have catastrophic effects on insect populations worldwide. A 1986 study by Om Gandhi warned that millimetre waves are strongly absorbed by the cornea of the eye, and that ordinary clothing, being of millimetre-size thickness, increases the absorption of energy by the skin by a resonance-type effect. Russell (2018) reviews the known effects of millimetre waves on skin, eyes (including cataracts), heart rate, immune system and DNA.
Regulators have deliberately excluded the scientific evidence of harm
Stakeholders thus far in the development of 5G have been industry and governments, while renowned international EMF scientists who have documented biological effects on humans, animals, insects and plants, and alarming effects on health and the environment in thousands of peer-reviewed studies have been excluded. The reason for the current inadequate safety guidelines is that conflicts of interest of standard-setting bodies “due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation”. Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall lays out the conflicts of interest in detail, and the lists of important studies that have been excluded, in his literature review.
The thermal hypothesis is obsolete—new safety standards are needed
Current safety guidelines are based on the obsolete hypothesis that heating is the only harmful effect of EMFs. As Markov and Grigoriev have stated, “Today standards do not consider the real pollution of the environment with nonionizing radiation”. Hundreds of scientists, including many signatories to this appeal, have proven that many different kinds of acute and chronic illnesses and injuries are caused without heating (“non-thermal effect”) from radiation levels far below international guidelines.9 Biological effects occur even at near-zero power levels. Effects that have been found at 0.02 picowatts (trillionths of a watt) per square centimetre or less include altered genetic structure in E. coli and in rats,[96] altered EEG in humans, growth stimulation in bean plants, and stimulation of ovulation in chickens. To protect against non-thermal effects, duration of exposure must be considered. 5G will expose everyone to many more transmissions simultaneously and continuously, day and night without cessation. New safety standards are needed and should be based on cumulative exposure and not only on power levels but also on frequency, bandwidth, modulation, waveform, pulse width and other properties that are biologically important. Antennas must be confined to specific, publicly identified locations. To protect humans, antennas must be located far from where people live and work, and excluded from the public rights-of-way where people walk. To protect wildlife, they must be excluded from wilderness sanctuaries and strictly minimized in remote areas of the Earth. To protect all life, commercial communications satellites must be limited in number and prohibited in low- and medium-Earth orbits. Phased arrays must be prohibited on Earth and in space.
RF radiation has both acute and chronic effects
RF radiation has both immediate and long-term effects. Cancer and heart disease are examples of long-term effects. Alteration of heart rhythm and changes in brain function (EEG) are examples of immediate effects. A syndrome that was called radiowave sickness in the former Soviet Union and is called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) around the world today can be either acute or chronic. Professor Dr. Karl Hecht has published a detailed history of these syndromes, compiled from a review of more than 1,500 Russian scientific papers and the clinical histories of more than 1,000 of his own patients in Germany. Objective findings include sleep disorders, abnormal blood pressure and heart rate, digestive disorders, hair loss, tinnitus and skin rash. Subjective symptoms include dizziness, nausea, headache, memory loss, inability to concentrate, fatigue, flu-like symptoms and cardiac pain. The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 states that EHS develops when people are “continuously exposed in their daily life” to increasing levels of EMFs, and that “reduction and prevention of EMF exposure” is necessary to restore these patients to health. EHS should no longer be considered a disease, but an injury by a toxic environment that affects an increasingly large portion of the population, estimated already at 100 million people worldwide, and that may soon affect everyone if the worldwide rollout of 5G is permitted. The International Scientific Declaration on EHS and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), Brussels, declared in 2015 that “[i]naction is a cost to society and is not an option any more… [W]e unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health… [urgently requiring] that major primary prevention measures are adopted and prioritized, to face this worldwide pan-epidemic in perspective” (emphasis added).
World governments are failing in their duty of care to the populations they govern
In their haste to implement 5G and to encourage the unconstrained use of outer space, the European Union, United States and national governments worldwide are taking steps to ensure a “barrier-free” regulatory environment. They are prohibiting local authorities from enforcing environmental laws, and “in the interest of speedy and cost-effective deployment”, removing “unnecessary burdens… such as local planning procedures [and] the variety of specific limits on electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions and of the methods required to aggregate them”. Governments are also enacting laws to make wireless facilities a permitted use in all public rights-of-way. To date, most wireless facilities have been located on private property at some distance from homes and businesses. In order for them to be spaced less than 100 metres apart as required by 5G, however, they will now be located on the sidewalk directly in front of homes and businesses and close above the heads of pedestrians, including mothers with babies. Public notice requirements and public hearings are being eliminated. Even if there were a hearing and 100 scientific experts were to testify against 5G, laws have been passed making it illegal for local authorities to take their testimony into consideration. US law, for example, prohibits local governments from regulating wireless technology “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency radiation”, and courts have reversed regulatory decisions about cell tower placement simply because most of the public testimony was about health Insurers will not provide coverage against EMF risks, and there is zero clarity as to what entity will bear legal responsibility for damage to life, limb and property arising from exposure to 5G, whether ground- or space-based. In the absence of an agreed comprehensive legal regime governing activities in outer space, legal liability for those activities is non-existent, despite the prospect of whole continents, the atmosphere and the oceans being put at risk by them.
International agreements are being violated
Children and duty of care
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: States shall “undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being” (art. 3), “ensure… the survival and development of the child” (art. 6) and “take appropriate measures to combat disease… taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution” (art. 24(c)). The Nuremberg Code (1947) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5G with new, higher RF radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (art. 1). Exposure to 5G will be involuntary. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (art. 5). The findings of over 10,000 scientific studies and the voices of hundreds of international organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members who have suffered disabling injury and been displaced from their homes by already-existing wireless telecommunications facilities, are “a priori reasons to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”.
Duty to inform and EMFs
The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (2012) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) stated that “[t]here is a need to inform the public of the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” and invited Member States “to adopt suitable measures in order to ensure compliance with relevant international recommendations to protect health against the adverse effect of EMF”. The Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2008): “The European Parliament… [n]otes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, … obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children.” Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): “Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people.”
Environment
The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972): “The discharge of toxic substances… in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems” (principle 6). The World Charter for Nature (1982): “Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided… [W]here potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed” (art. 11). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992): “States have… the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (principle 2). The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002): “There is an urgent need to… create more effective national and regional policy responses to environmental threats to human health” (para. 54(k)). The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2017): “The Parties shall… take all appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and eliminate to the maximum extent possible, detrimental effects on the environment, in particular from radioactive, toxic, and other hazardous substances and wastes” (art. 13).
Health and human rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (art. 3). The United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030) has as objectives and targets to “transform”, by expanding enabling environments; to “survive”, by reducing maternal and newborn mortality; and to “thrive” by ensuring health and well-being and reducing pollution-related deaths and illnesses.
Space
The Outer Space Treaty (1967) requires that the use of outer space be conducted “so as to avoid [its] harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth” (art. IX) The United Nations Guidelines for The Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (2018): “States and international intergovernmental organizations should address… risks to people, property, public health and the environment associated with the launch, in-orbit operation and re-entry of space objects” (guideline 2.2(c)).
World governments are playing dice with life on Earth
Albert Einstein famously asserted that “God does not play dice”. Yet by pursuing the broadcast on Earth and from space of 5G, an unprecedented technology of millimetre waves previously used as an energy weapon in military operations and crowd control, world governments are recklessly playing dice with the future of life on Earth. To refuse to accept and apply relevant and valid scientific knowledge is ethically unacceptable. Existing research shows that 5G—and especially space-based 5G—contravenes principles enshrined in a host of international agreements.
We call upon the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations,
(a) To take immediate measures to halt the deployment of 5G on Earth and in space in order to protect all humankind, especially the unborn, infants, children, adolescents and pregnant women, as well as the environment;
(b) To follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Council of Europe Resolution 1815 by informing citizens, including teachers and physicians, about the health risks (to adults and children) from RF radiation, and why they should and how they can avoid wireless communication and base stations, particularly in or near day-care centres, schools, hospitals, homes and workplaces;
(c) To favour and implement wired telecommunications instead of wireless;
(d) To prohibit the wireless/telecommunications industry through its lobbying organizations from persuading officials to make decisions permitting further expansion of RF radiation, including ground- and space-based 5G;
(e) To appoint immediately—without industry influence—international groups of independent, truly impartial EMF and health scientists with no conflicts of interest, for the purpose of establishing new international safety standards for RF radiation that are not based only on power levels, that consider cumulative exposure, and that protect against all health and environmental effects, not just thermal effects and not just effects on humans;
(f) To appoint immediately—without industry influence—international groups of scientists with expertise in EMFs, health, biology and atmospheric physics, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that will ensure that the uses of outer space are safe for humans and the environment, taking into account RF radiation, rocket exhaust gases, black soot, and space debris and their impacts on ozone, global warming, the atmosphere and the preservation of life on Earth. Not only ground-based but also space-based technology must be sustainable for adults and children, animals and plants.
Please respond to the Appeal Administrator listed below, detailing the measures you intend to take to protect the global population against RF radiation exposure, especially 5G radiation. This appeal and your response will be publicly available on http://www.5gSpaceAppeal.org.
Respectfully submitted, Arthur Firstenberg, Appeal Administrator, info@5gSpaceAppeal.org
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2105983
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Technology


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement